Man Confesses to Murder and walks free

Man Confesses to Murder and walks free

www.huffingtonpost.com

"He could have turned over a video tape of him committing the murder and it wouldn't change the fact that double jeopardy is attached," Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell told The Huffington Post. "We had our chance. The jury acquitted him and, just in the same way OJ could confess today to his wife's murder, it wouldn’t affect what could be done to him."

(visit the link for the full news article)

With so much discussion surrounding double jeopardy in the Casey Anthony trial and the O.J. trial - I thought this article was worth pointing out.

I'm a big fan of double jeopardy and I love that this guy proves it works.

LOL Mostly, I hope more murderers, will take it as an "example" and come forward with the truth - if for no other reason than to end the debates.

There have been speculation and rumors that authorities could go after Turnbaugh on other potential charges such as perjury, but Sorrell said the defendant did not testify on his own behalf, so perjury is out of the question.

Makes me wonder if we should force the accused to take the stand.... what do you think?

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Forevever


I caught a snippet of this scanning the news earlier.

What can you really say?

"okay then..."

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack


More curious about what people think in regards to the accused having to take the stand.

Even if they get on the stand and plead the fifth... Maybe people should be judged on character.

I'm not necessarily saying this is my opinion, I'm just wondering what others think about it.

In this particular case, he didn't take the stand so no perjury... is it "ok" to hide behind lawyers? He could brag to his friends, but couldn't get up there to deny he did it?

I think they're pertinent questions to ask.

reply to post by Forevever


Laws and codes are so incredibly arcane, lawyers are just absolutely necessary these days.

Judging people on character is highly subjective. It would just never stand in a court of law.

This guy is an idiot though. You can almost guarantee he won't see 2012.

ETA: Not taking the stand is rooted in our Constitution. Better to see ten guilty men go free than to see one innocent hanged.

Originally posted by Forevever


Makes me wonder if we should force the accused to take the stand.... what do you think?

I disagree with this proposal completely. Many people get nervous in those types of situations, or in front of crowds. Many people could just look guilty, even though they aren't.

The double jeopardy law is supposed to cause lawyers to delay any charges until there is sufficient evidence. If this law didn't exist, you can be certain that for every person who is killed, someone, anyone, will be brought to trial. When you don't have to worry about gathering evidence, you will end up charging the person first and looking for evidence later. So you will have a lot more innocent people defending themselves for something they didn't do. Plus, as soon as you're pronounced innocent, you'd be back in the appeals court. Easily, 5 years of your life gone when you are completely innocent...

Another question, was the guy lying during the trial, or after the trial? You can't really prove it either way.
It's just a hypothetical question, the guy most likely got away with murder.

Personally I think they should have to take the stand.

Imo if you don't want to take the stand you are hiding something. Everyone else in the accused circle has to go up and testify and have their personal life dragged in the mud yet the accused gets to just sit there? No, they should have to go up there and FACE the music so to speak. Guilty or not.

I saw this on the news and was surprised. I hadn't really heard of a case where DJ was used. I first heard of the term from the movie, which is awesome btw!

I also don't think it's a very fair law esp if the person accused is found not guilty then later confesses and has proof. I guess it's one of those questionable laws..wonder who came up with it honestly and how long its been around.

reply to post by Ghost375


Double-Jeopardy was explained to me like this:

Back in England, people would get trials. But if the ruling (innocent) displeased the King or his goons, the person would be tried and tried again until hanged.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Um... yikes

Here are the answers you seek:

www.constitution.org...

www.ratical.org...

I'm begging you to read them.

good ol constituion overrides emotion again !

yes it sucks ... but shows the reasonable doubt ...


and hey if justice wasn't served as people might have wanted but .. im sure karma will be right?

Thank you Ghost - I do mostly agree with you.
Thank you Spring - I understand the reasons for double jeopardy.

mblah however, makes my point perfectly

Everyone else in the accused circle has to go up and testify and have their personal life dragged in the mud yet the accused gets to just sit there?

I have to agree - if we step slightly away from this particular trial - just consider what any poor female has to go through in a rape trial - while the accused gets to just sit there she's called every name in the book, having every little detail about her past and relationships brought up in cross examination.

I agree also with Ghost about people being "nervous" - I would like to assume the members of the jury could distinguish guilt from nervousness, but thats not the case...


I don't know the solution for it to end fairly, but I see the loophole.... hiding behind lawyers is not fair play.

reply to post by Forevever


Consider the rights of the accused as well.

Using your example of a rape trial, often court is held and either the accuser or the accused is not in attendance but watching via video. That's horrendous in my opinion.

Sometimes the accuser isn't even identified. It's just some guy or girl arguing their case against an audio stream.

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack


I agree 100%
The accuser should always have to be present (except in cases where they're a minor)

I understand the laws though and why they're in place
I would also rather see many go free, than have one innocent go to prison

But I think there could be a compromise here... I just don't know what it is

thanks for the move Mods I wasn't sure

Originally posted by Forevever...could go after Turnbaugh on other potential charges such as perjury, but Sorrell said the defendant did not testify on his own behalf, so perjury is out of the question.

...

Besides that, the statute of limitations is up

....

Seems it doesn't matter anyhow.

reply to post by abecedarian

LOL Mostly, I hope more murderers, will take it as an "example" and come forward with the truth - if for no other reason than to end the debates

reply to post by Forevever


Force a person to take the stand? Absolutely not, as it would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights. If the state is so sure a person committed the crime, then they can take the time and effort to rpove it in court.

Absent that.. Jeopardy is there for a reason.....

I would rather see a murderer go free than an innocent person go to jail.

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
Double-Jeopardy was explained to me like this:

Back in England, people would get trials. But if the ruling (innocent) displeased the King or his goons, the person would be tried and tried again until hanged.

Yeah, but I'm sure that your ''back in England'' mention refers to some ''trial'' that took place in the days of burning witches.

Double jeopardy is an outdated concept which sadly still infests modern-day justice systems.


The facile argument that retrying someone for the same crime will lead to corrupt and exploitative ''justice'', is abundantly absurd.

There's absolutely no way that people would tolerate a court case which involved the accused being tried again, again and again...

reply to post by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Forevever
I understand the laws though and why they're in place
I would also rather see many go free, than have one innocent go to prison

But I think there could be a compromise here... I just don't know what it is

reply to post by Forevever


Of course it could always be used against him in a civil trial for wrongful death... Jut like OJ....

reply to post by Xcathdra


thats another interesting thing about the article
he was "aware" enough to wait for the statute of limitations to be up before confessing to the police....

like (someone above) said.. maybe he's lying now...

reminds me of the guy who's claiming to hoax the UFO photo from 20 years ago

why wait 20 years to admit something like that?


Its like everyone is trying to get their 15 minutes of fame these days, you can't believe anything anymore.